There's a whole bizarre subtext to Piltdown Man's garbage here -- the idea that the symbolic significance he attaches to any given act is a more fundamental part of that act than the physical reality of it. It's as if I were to declare that Piltdown Man is clearly a proponent of the doctrine of reincarnation, as he symbolically enacts this doctrine by going to sleep and then waking up again. After all, the symbolic reading of a physical act is always more important than the actual motives involved -- especially when the symbolism is meaningless to the person actually engaging in the act.

"There's a whole bizarre subtext to Piltdown Man's garbage here -- the idea that the symbolic significance he attaches to any given act is a more fundamental part of that act than the physical reality of it. It's as if I were to declare that Piltdown Man is clearly a proponent of the doctrine of reincarnation, as he symbolically enacts this doctrine by going to sleep and then waking up again. After all, the symbolic reading of a physical act is always more important than the actual motives involved -- especially when the symbolism is meaningless to the person actually engaging in the act."

It's not a case of me assigning some arbitrary "symbolic significance" to a physical act, the "physical reality" of which is separate from this symbolism.

It's a case of God assigning the human person, body and soul, a particular teleological end, or series of ends, which we are at liberty to frustrate to our own physical and spiritual detriment.

Sometimes I wonder if god is up there on a cloud with a bag of ice on his head and muttering, "Make it stop...these dustbrains are giving me an ulcer....I didn't sign up for this death match between them and the rest of the world..."

Right. Teleology presented as a series of assertions within your symbolic system, which you claim has precedence over reality when the reality varies from your set of doctrines. I keep hearing the voice of Jean Baudrillard chanting "I told you so" in my ear...between you and the right-wing movement generally, dude hasn't stopped for a few years now.

Piltdown Man: "I've noticed this persistent liberal tic -- the belief that liberalism is so self-evidently good, true and beautiful that non-liberals cannot possibly be motivated by rational disagreement."

There are three parts to your "Liberalism", and not all "Liberals" believe in all of the three:
- Humanism
- Socialism
- Atheism

If #3, Athiesm, is true, then #1, Humanism looks the most appealing as an ideology, but it also looks good to a lot of Christians.

Now, if Humanism is our ideology, we need an ethical system to match our values. Most will find that a weak version of utilitarianism or ethical hedonism fits well. Neither of these prohibit homosexuality, and argue that banning it would cause more harm than good.

#2, Socialism, is a practical problem, not an ideological one, and so is seperate to the others. I don't completely agree with it myself.

I won't bore you with the evidence in favour of athiesm, as it's not hard to find on the internet. Make sure to look at it from an unbiased point of view.

By the way, I find your Christian theology to be a simplistic and unsatisfying metaphysics that doesn't give a satisfactory answer to questions at all.

"There are three parts to your "Liberalism", and not all "Liberals" believe in all of the three:
- Humanism
- Socialism
- Atheism"

My definition of "liberalism" wouldn't include atheism. There are plenty of religious folk who would describe themselves as liberal or even humanist. Conversely, not all atheists are liberals or humanist -- on the late lamented RDF I encountered an authoritarian technocrat and a bloodthirsty Nietzschean, both of whom dreamed of wiping religion off the face of the Earth.

"Now, if Humanism is our ideology, we need an ethical system to match our values. Most will find that a weak version of utilitarianism or ethical hedonism fits well."

Do you find that a satisfactory ethic yourself?

"#2, Socialism, is a practical problem, not an ideological one, and so is seperate to the others. I don't completely agree with it myself."

As I understand it, a central doctrine of socialism is the redistribution of wealth by the state apparatus in order to achieve a supposedly more equitable society. Sounds pretty ideological to me.

"I won't bore you with the evidence in favour of athiesm, as it's not hard to find on the internet. Make sure to look at it from an unbiased point of view."

I am familiar with the arguments for atheism but I find them unpersuasive. If I found them persuasive I would be an atheist, obviously.

"By the way, I find your Christian theology to be a simplistic and unsatisfying metaphysics that doesn't give a satisfactory answer to questions at all."

Curious ... Roman Catholic theology is usually dismissed for its alleged hyper-intellectualism and hair-splitting subtlety. What questions do you feel it fails to answer satisfactorily?